Trustees Hold £500,000 on Trust for Oko for Life, and on Oko's

Trustees hold £500,000 on trust for Oko for life, and on Oko's death on trust for her four children, one of whom is James. The funds are safely invested and produce an income of £20,000 per year, which is Oko's only source of income apart from the state old age pension. Without making any further enquiries, at the request of James, the trustees invest £400,000 of the trust funds in a property investment company that he has just established.
James' company fails after less than a year, having paid no dividends. The trustees recover just £30,000 of the sum they invested.
Which of the following statements is the most accurate?

A) The trustees have committed no breach of trust because, since the Trustee Act 2000, trustees are allowed to invest in any kind of investment. This is therefore an authorised investment.
B) The trustees have acted in breach of fiduciary duty because they have preferred the interests of one beneficiary to those of another. There is no other basis for asserting a breach of trust.
C) The trustees have exceeded their authority because under the Trustee Act 2000, they are required to consider whether to take professional financial advice before making an asset management decision, and they have failed to do this. They have therefore acted beyond their powers in making this investment. There is no other basis for asserting a breach of trust.
D) The trustees have acted without reasonable care or due prudence because reasonable and prudent trustees would not have made this investment. There is no other basis for asserting a breach of trust.
E)
There is a strong case for arguing that the trustees have acted beyond their powers, without reasonable care or prudence, and in breach of fiduciary duty.